The IOPC have restricted access to their case workers for releasing a concerning audio call with a case handler.
This is the email I received from Brett Gerrard, the Head of Assessment Unit at the IOPC. (click to enlarge)
This decision is being appealed.
Brett is referring to the video linked below which relates to the IOPC and PCC (Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner) trying to (in my view) prevent a criminal investigation from taking place into the Former Chief Constable of Lancashire police.
Substantial evidence exists but they are, so far, refusing to even look at the evidence and are making a decision IF they will look at the available evidence. (you really cannot make this up!)
Please watch the YouTube video and please be respectful with the comments. I will be producing a further follow up video on this subject, so please like and subscribe to my YouTube channel to be notified of future videos.
An interesting development,not least the justification relating to the exposure of the decision maker. Whilst I am not unsympathetic to that person being exposed to this event it has highlighted their role, and the way significant events likely to be an embarrassment is being handled by the ‘Professionals’
Good evening,
I would greatly very grateful if you could please update us on this case. I also am suffering because of a number of Officers within GMP who have committed serious perjury, no only to me, but to a Senior judge. These officers have violated my human rights,my freedom of speech, and my right to freedom of movement. My rights to have my very serious criminal complaints investigated.
I would be honoured if you would kindly keep me / us updated in your fight to ensure Police corruption, lies and abuse is fought by the honest people and that these people who think they arevabive the law are held accountable for their lies, deceit and corruption.
Thank you.
Paul Nugent
Hi Paul, thanks for the reply, this case and all others will be published in full on this website and on my YouTube channel.
I am amazed that the responses she has given is so transparently flawed. In simple language the ‘first person’ says ‘yes’ but did NOT have the authority to say that, she says she is the person to make that decision. If that is the case then she should look at what they said was the ‘test’ of the ‘yes’ from the ‘first person’, articulate where that was wrong on the basis of the ‘test’ not the authority to determine if the investigation is required. She can then explain her decision, she says she has to do this either way. I sense the time being spent is to look for a way around and to make the decision to say ‘no’ investigation. I can only hope exposure to such a poor response she has put forward will cause her embarrassment. I’m not trained and yet I sense I could study the relevent legislation, take advice from higher powers and then make that decision. Good Luck.
Hi Chris, I have a Judicial Review on standby if the decision is unreasonable, in any event, a private prosecution application will be made on the available evidence. This will be led by a leading barrister to ensure no ‘bent judge’ is involved which Lancashire police are known for.